Christ Our Example- First and Foremost.

 

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER VII. “APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE,” OR CHRIST’S EXAMPLE?

ACTS 20:7

In continuing his search for the origin of the first day of the week as the Lord’s day, the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” comes to Acts 20:7. As this text mentions a meeting of disciples on the first day of the week, at which an apostle preached, it is really made the foundation upon which to lay the claim of the custom of the primitive church, and the example of the apostles in sanctioning the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath. But although there was a meeting held on the first day of the week, and although an apostle was at the meeting, as a matter of fact, there is in it neither custom nor example in favor of keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. Here is what Mr. Elliott makes of the passage:—

“The most distinct reference to the Christian use of the first day of the week is that found in Acts 20:7: ‘And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.’ ...The language clearly implies that the apostle availed himself of the occasion brought about by the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week to preach to the people.... Here, then, is a plain record of the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week, less than thirty years after the resurrection. The language is just what would be used in such a case.”—Pp. 194, 195. 

It is hard to see how he can find “a plain record of the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week,” when the record says nothing at all about any such custom. In all the narrative of which this verse forms a part there is no mention whatever of anything that was there done being done according to custom, nor to introduce what should become a custom, nor that it was to be an example to be followed by Christians throughout all coming time. So the fact is that Mr. Elliott’s “plain record” of a custom lacks the essential thing which would show a custom. 

Nor is his statement that “the language is just what would be used in such a case,” any more in accordance with the fact; for when Luke, who wrote this record, had occasion to speak of that which was a custom he did so plainly. For example: “And he [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke 4:16. Again: “And Paul, as his manner [custom] was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts 17:2. In these two passages, the words, “as his custom was,” and “as his manner was,” as Luke wrote them, are identical—Kata to eiothos—and in both instances mean precisely as his custom was; and that “language is just what” Inspiration has used in such cases as a plain record of a custom. Therefore we submit that the total absence of any such language from the passage under consideration, is valid argument that it is not a record of any such thing as the custom of the assemblage of Christians on the first day of the week. 

If the record really said that it was then a custom to assemble on the first day of the week; if it said: Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together, as their custom was, as the same writer says that it was the custom of Christ and of Paul to go to the Sabbath assemblies; if it said: Upon the first day of the week Paul preached to the disciples as his custom was; then no man could deny that such was indeed the custom: but as in the word of God there is neither statement nor hint to that effect, no man can rightly affirm that such was a custom, without going beyond the word of God; and that is prohibited by the word itself—“Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32. More than this, reading into that passage the “custom” of assemblage on the first day of the week, is not only to go beyond that which is written; it is to do violence to the very language in which it is written. The meaning of the word “custom” is, “A frequent repetition of the same act.” A single act is not custom. An act repeated once or twice is not custom. The frequent repetition of an act, that is custom. Now as Acts 20:7 is the only case on record that a religious meeting was ever held, either by the disciples or the apostles, on the first day of the week, as there is no record of a single repetition of that act, much less of a “frequent repetition” of it, it follows inevitably that there is no shadow of justice nor of right in the claim that the custom of the apostles and of the primitive church sanctions the observance of that day as the day of rest and worship—the Sabbath. There was no such custom. 

We have a few words more to say on this passage, and that we may discuss it with the best advantage to the reader we copy the whole connection:— 

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Verses 7-11. 

Upon the face of this whole narrative it is evident that this meeting was at night. Let us put together several of the statements: (1) “Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together ...there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.” (2) “Paul preached unto them ...and continued his speech until midnight.” (3) At midnight Eutychus fell out of the window, and Paul went down and brought him up, and then he broke the bread and ate, therefore we may read, “The disciples came together to break bread,” and after midnight the bread was broken. (4) After that Paul “talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Therefore we may read, (5) Upon the first day of the week, the disciples came together, and there were many lights where they were gathered together. They came together to break bread, and after midnight the bread was broken. Paul preached unto them until midnight, and even till break of day. When the disciples came together, Paul was ready to depart on the morrow, and when he had talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. There can be no room for any reasonable doubt that the meeting referred to in Acts 20:7 was wholly a night meeting, and not only that but that it was an all-night meeting. 

This meeting being therefore in the night of the first day of the week, the question properly arises, According to the Bible, what part of the complete day does the night form? Is the night the first or the last part of the complete day? The Bible plainly shows that the night is the first part of the day. There was darkness on the earth before there was light. When God created the world, darkness was upon the face of the deep. Then “God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” Then “God called the light day, and the darkness he called night.” As the darkness was called night, as the darkness was upon the earth before the light, and as it takes both the night and the day—the darkness and the light—to make the complete day, it follows that in the true count of days by the revolution of the earth, the night precedes the day. This is confirmed by the Scripture: “The evening [the darkness, the night] and the morning [the light, the day] were the first day.” 

This is the order which God established in the beginning of the world; it is the order that is laid down in the beginning of the book of God; and it is the order that is followed throughout the book of God. In Leviticus 23:27-32, giving directions about the day of atonement, God said that it should be “the tenth day of the seventh month,” and that that was from the ninth day of the month at even; “from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.” Thus the tenth day of the month began in the evening of the ninth day of the month. And so according to Bible time every day begins in the evening, and evening is at the going down of the sun. Deuteronomy 16:6. Therefore as the meeting mentioned in Acts 20:7-11 was in the night of the first day of the week, and as in the word and the order of God the night is the first part of the day, it follows that the meeting was on what is now called Saturday night. For if it had been on what is now called Sunday night it would have been on the second day of the week and not on the first. So Conybeare and Howson, in “Life and Epistles of Paul,” say: “It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath.” And that is now called Saturday night. 

This meeting, then, being on what is now called Saturday night, as Paul preached till midnight, and after the breaking of bread talked till break of day and departed, it follows that at break of day on the first day of the week, at break of day on Sunday, Paul started afoot from Troas to Assos, a distance of twenty miles, with the intention of going on board a ship at Assos and continuing his journey, which he did. For says the record: “We [Paul’s companions in travel, Acts 20:4] went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene.” Verses 13, 14. Paul not only walked from Troas to Assos on Sunday, but he appointed that his companions should sail to that place—about forty miles by water—and be there by the time he came so that he could go on without delay. And when he reached Assos he went at once aboard the ship and sailed away to Mitylene, which was nearly forty miles further. That is to say, on the first day of the week Paul walked twenty miles and then sailed nearly forty more, making nearly sixty miles that he traveled; and he appointed that his companions—Luke, Timothy, Tychicus, Trophimus, Gaius, Aristarchus, and Secundus—should sail forty miles and then take him aboard, and all sail nearly forty miles more, making nearly eighty miles travel for them, all on Sunday. And this is exactly how these Christians kept that first day of the week of which mention is made in Acts 20. 

But nowadays men try to make it appear that it is an awful sin to travel on Sunday. Yes, some people now seem to think that if a ship should sail on Sunday, the sin would be so great that nothing but a perfect miracle of grace would keep it from sinking. Paul neither taught nor acted any such thing, for says the record: “We went before to ship, and sailed; ...for so had he appointed.” Paul and his companions regarded Sunday in nowise different from the other common working days of the week. For, mark, the first day of the week they sailed from Troas to Mitylene, “the next day” they sailed from Mitylene to Chios, “the next day” from Chios to Samos and Trogyllium, and “the next day” to Miletus. Here are “the first day of the week,” “the next day,” “the next day,” and “the next day,” and Paul and his companions did the same things on one of these days that they did on another. They considered one of them no more sacred than another. They considered the first day of the week to be no more of a sabbath than the next day, or the next day, or the next day. True, Paul preached all night, before he started on the first day of the week; but on the fifth or sixth day of the week he preached also at Miletus, to the elders of the church of Ephesus. 

Instead, therefore, of the Sunday deriving any sacredness from the word of God, or resting for its observance upon the authority of that word, or upon that which is just and right, or upon the example of the apostles, or the custom of the primitive church, it is contrary to all these. It is essentially an interloper, and rests for its so-called sacredness and for its authority upon nothing but “the commandments of men.” 

Of all the arguments that are made in support of the first day of the week as the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, the one which above all is the most thoroughly sophistical and deceptive is this that proposes to rest its obligation upon “the example of the apostles,” or of the “primitive Christians.” We want to look into this thing a little and see what the claim is worth, upon its own merits. “The example of the apostles.” What is it? If the phrase means anything at all, it means that the example of the apostles is the standard of human duty in moral things. But if that be so, their example must be the standard in every other duty as well as in the supposed duty of keeping the first day of the week. But nobody ever thinks of appealing to the example of the apostles in any question of morals, except in the (supposed moral) matter of the observance of the first day of the week as a sacred day. By this, therefore, even those who make the claim of apostolic example do, in effect, deny the very claim which they themselves set up. 

Who ever thinks of resting upon the example of the apostles, the obligation to obey any one of the ten commandments? Take the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Who ever thinks of appealing to the example of the apostles in impressing upon men the obligation to obey this? And what should be thought of a person anyhow who would do it? That commandment is the will of God, and the basis of its obligation is as much higher than the example of the apostles as Heaven is higher than earth, or as God is higher than man. And the obligation to obey that commandment rested just as strongly upon the apostles as it ever did, or as it ever will, upon anybody else. 

It is so with every commandment of the decalogue, and with every form of duty under any one of the commandments. Who would think of impressing upon children the duty to honor their parents by citing them to the example of the apostles? The duty to honor parents possesses higher sanctions than the example of the apostles, even the sanctions of the will of God. And to inculcate upon the minds of children this duty, upon the basis of the example of the apostles, would only be to turn them away from God, and would destroy all the force of this duty upon the conscience. It is so in relation to every moral precept. The apostles were subjects and not masters of moral obligation. Moral duties spring from the will of God, and not from the example of men; and a knowledge of moral duties is derivable alone from the commands of God, and not from the actions of men; all of which goes to show that in point of morals there is no such thing as apostolic example. This is shown by other considerations as well. In fact every consideration only the more fully demonstrates it. 

The law of God—the ten commandments—is the supreme standard of morals for the universe, and so expresses the whole duty of man. That law is perfect, and demands perfection in every subject of it. Therefore, whoever would be an example to men in the things pertaining to the law of God, that is, in any moral duty, must be perfect. Whoever would be an example to men in moral duties must not only be perfect, but he must have always been perfect. He must always have met to the full every requirement of the law of God. But this no man whom the world ever saw has done. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” “They are all gone out of the way.” The perfection of the law of God has never been met in any man whom the world ever saw. Therefore, no man whom the world ever saw can ever be an example to men in moral duties. Consequently there is not, and there never can be, any such thing as apostolic example in moral things. To many this may appear to be stating the case too strongly, because the apostles were inspired men. We abate not one jot from the divine inspiration of the apostles, nor from the respect justly due them as inspired men; but we say without the slightest hesitation that, although the apostles were indeed inspired, they are not examples to men in moral duties. 

Because, first, no degree of inspiration can ever put a man above the law of God; and because, secondly, although we know that the doctrine and the writings of the apostles are inspired, yet we know also that all their actions were not inspired. This we know because the inspired record tells us so. Here is the inspired record of one instance in point: “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all,” etc. Galatians 2:11-14. 

Peter “was to be blamed.” He “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Then what kind of “apostolic example” was that to follow? and where were those led who followed it? They were being carried away with dissimulation—two-facedness, hypocrisy; they were being led away from “the truth of the gospel.” But they could claim apostolic example for it, and that too with the very apostles—Peter and Barnabas—present, whom they might claim as their examples. But God did not leave them there; he rebuked their sin, and corrected their fault, and brought them back from their blameworthiness to uprightness once more according to the truth of the gospel. And in the record of it God has shown all men that there is no such thing as “apostolic example” for anybody to follow, but that the truth of the gospel and the word of God is that according to which all men must walk. 

Another instance, and in this even Paul himself was involved: “Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other.” Acts 15:36-39. 

“The contention was so sharp between them.” Is that “apostolic example” which is to be followed by all men? Everybody will at once say, No. But why is it not? Because it is not right. But when we say that that is not right, in that very saying we at once declare that there is a standard by which the apostles themselves must be tried, and by which their example must be measured. And that is to acknowledge at once that there is no such thing as “apostolic example.”

We do not cite these things to reproach the apostles, nor to charge them with not being Christians. They were men of like passions with all the rest of us; and were subject to failings as well as all the rest of us. They had weaknesses in themselves to strengthen by exercise in divine grace, and defects of moral character to overcome by the help of God. They had to fight the good fight of faith as well as all the rest of us. And they fought the good fight and became at last “more than conquerors through Him that hath loved” them as well as us, and hath washed us all “from our sins in his own blood.” Far be it that we should cite these things to reproach the apostles; we simply bring forth the record which God has given of the apostles, to show to men that if they will be perfect they must have a higher aim than “the example of the apostles.” By these things from the word of God we would show to men that, in working out the problem of human destiny under the perfect law of God, that problem must be worked by an example that never fails. We write these things not that we love the apostles less, but Christ more. And this is only what the apostles themselves have shown. Ask the apostles whether we shall follow them as examples. Peter, shall we follow your example? Answer: “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” 1 Peter 2:21, 22. Paul, shall we not follow your example? Answer: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1. John, “that disciple whom Jesus loved,” shall we not follow your example? Shall we not walk in your ways? answer: “He that saith he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked.” 1 John 2:6. Wherefore, as the apostles themselves repudiate the claim of apostolic example, it follows that there is no such thing as “the example of the apostles.” 

Jesus Christ is the one only example for men to follow. To every man he commands absolutely, “Follow me.” “Take my yoke upon you and learn of me.” “I am the door.” “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way [by the “other way” of apostolic example, for instance], the same is a thief and a robber.” “By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.” The Lord Jesus is the one only person whom this world ever saw who met perfectly every requirement of the perfect law of God. He was made flesh, and he, in the flesh, and form, and nature of man, stood in every place and met every temptation that any man can ever meet, and in every place and in everything he met all the demands of the perfect law of God. He did it from infancy to the prime of manhood, and never failed. “He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” Therefore, as he is the only person whom this world ever saw who ever met to the full all the perfect requirements of the law of God, it follows that he is the only person whom the world ever saw, or ever shall see, who can be an example for men, or whose example is worthy to be followed by men. 

Therefore, when preachers and leaders of theological thought anywhere present before men any other example, even though it be the example of the apostles, and seek to induce men to follow any other example, even though it be proposed as apostolic example, such conduct is sin against God, and treason against our Lord Jesus Christ. And that there are men in this day, Protestants too, who are doing that very thing only shows how far from Christ the religious teachers of the day have gone. It is time that they and all men should be told that the law of God is the one perfect rule of human duty; that the Lord Jesus Christ is the one perfect example that has been worked out in this world under that rule; and that all men who will correctly solve the problem of human destiny must solve it by the terms of that rule as exemplified in, and according to, that example. Whoever attempts to solve the problem by any other rule or according to any other example will utterly fail of a correct solution; and whoever teaches men to attempt to solve it by any other rule or according to any other example, even though it be by “the example of the apostles,” he both acts and teaches treason against the Lord Jesus Christ. 

What, then, is the example of Christ in regard to keeping the first day of the week? There is no example about it at all. He never kept it. No one ever can—in fact no one ever does—claim any example of Christ for keeping the first day of the week. But where there is no example of Christ there can be no example of the apostles. Therefore there is not, and cannot be, any such thing as the example of the apostles for keeping the first day of the week. 

What, then, is the example of Christ in regard to keeping the seventh day? He kept the first seventh day the world ever saw, when he had finished his great work of creation. When he came into the world, everybody knows that he kept it as long as he lived in the world. And “he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk even as he walked.” Therefore those who walk as he walked will have to keep the seventh day. His steps led him to the place of worship on the seventh day, for thus “his custom was” (Luke 4:16), and he taught the people how to keep the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord (Matthew 12:1-12). And he has left “us an example that ye should follow his steps.” And all who follow his steps will be led by those steps to keep the seventh day, and to turn away their feet from the Sabbath, for such is his example. 

Paul said, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Now was Paul a follower of Christ in the matter of the seventh day? Let us see: “And he [Christ] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke 4:16. And of Paul it is said, by the same writer, “They came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews, and Paul, as his manner [custom] was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts 17:1, 2. Paul did follow Christ in his “custom” of keeping the Sabbath day—the seventh day—therefore if any man will obey the word of God by Paul, and will be a follower of Paul as he followed Christ, it will have to be his “custom” to go to the house of God, and to worship God, on the seventh day. 

For the keeping of the seventh day we have the commandment of God, the example of the living God (Exodus 20:8-11; Genesis 2:3), and the example of the Lord Jesus Christ both in Heaven and on earth, both as Creator and Redeemer. And there is neither command nor example for the keeping of any other day. Will you obey the commandment of God, and follow the divine example in divine things? or will you instead obey a human command and follow human examples in human things, and expect the divine reward for it? Answer yourself now as you expect to answer God in the Judgment. 

1 Corinthians 16:2. 

The next reference noticed by Mr. Elliott is 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, of which he writes— 

“Another incidental allusion to the religious use of the day—an allusion none the less valuable because incidental—is the direction of Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2: ‘Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.’ ...The Corinthians were on that day to deposit their alms in a common treasury.”—Pp. 195, 196. 

Paul’s direction is, “Let every one of you lay by him in store;” Mr. Elliott says they were “to deposit their alms in a common treasury.” Now can a man lay by him in store, and deposit in a common treasury, the same money at the same time? If there are any, especially of those who keep Sunday, who think that it can be done, let them try it. Next Sunday, before you go to meeting find out how God has prospered you, and set apart accordingly that sum of money which you will lay by you in store by depositing it in the common treasury of the church. Then as you go to church, take the money along, and when the collection box is passed, put in it that which you are going to lay by you in store; and the work is done! According to Mr. Elliott’s idea, you have obeyed this scripture. That is you have obeyed it by putting away from you the money which the Scripture directs you to lay by you. You have put into the hands of others that which is to be laid by you. You have carried away and placed entirely beyond your control, and where you will never see it again, that which is to be laid by you in store. In other words you have obeyed the Scripture by directly disobeying it. 

True, that is a novel kind of obedience; but no one need be surprised at it in this connection; for that is the only kind of obedience to the Scripture that can ever be shown by keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. The commandment of God says “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.... The seventh day is the Sabbath.” And people propose to obey that commandment by remembering the first day instead of the seventh. The word of God says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work;” and people who keep Sunday propose to obey that word by working all day on the day in which God says they shall do no work. And so it is in perfect accord with the principles of the Sunday-sabbath that Mr. Elliott should convey the idea that 1 Corinthians 16:2 was obeyed by doing directly the opposite of what the text says. 

But he seeks to justify his theory by the following remark:— 

“That this laying in store did not mean a simple hoarding of gifts by each one in his own house, is emphatically shown by the reason alleged for the injunction, ‘that there be no gatherings’ (i. e. “collections,” the same word used in the first verse) ‘when I come.’ ...If the gifts had had to be collected from house to house, the very object of the apostle’s direction would have failed to be secured.” 

This reasoning might be well enough if it were true. But it is not true. This we know because Paul himself has told us just what he meant, and has shown us just what the Corinthians understood him to mean; and Mr. Elliott’s theory is the reverse of Paul’s record of facts. A year after writing the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote the second letter; and in the second letter he makes explicit mention of this very “collection for the saints,” about which he had given these directions in the first letter. In the second letter (chap. 9:1-5), Paul writes:— 

“For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you; for I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready; lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up before-hand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness.” 

Now if Mr. Elliott’s theory be correct, that the Corinthians were to deposit their alms in a common treasury each first day of the week, and if that was what Paul meant that they should do, then why should Paul think it “necessary” to send brethren before himself “to make up” this bounty, so “that it might be ready” when he came? If Mr. Elliott’s theory be correct, what possible danger could there have been of these brethren finding the Corinthians “unprepared”? and why should Paul be afraid that they were unprepared? No; Mr. Elliott’s theory and argument are contrary to the facts. In the first letter to the Corinthians (16:2), Paul meant just what he said, that on the first day of the week every one should “lay by him in store;” and the Corinthian Christians so understood it, and so likewise would everyone else understand it, were it not that its perversion is so sorely essential in bolstering up the baseless fabric of the Sunday Lord’s day. But the Corinthians, having no such thing to cripple or pervert their ability to understand plain language, understood it as it was written, and as Paul meant that it should be understood. Each one laid by him as directed; then when the time came for Paul to go by them and take their alms to Jerusalem, he sent brethren before to make up the bounty which had been laid by in store, so that it might be ready when he came. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 16:2 gives no sanction whatever to the idea of meetings on the first day of the week. 

And now after all his peregrinations in search of the origin of the first day of the week as the Lord’s day, Mr. Elliott arrives at the following intensely logical deduction:— 

“The selection of the Lord’s day by the apostles as the one festival day of the new society seems so obviously natural, and even necessary, that when we join to these considerations the fact that it was so employed, we can no longer deny to the religious use of Sunday the high sanction of apostolic authority.”—P. 198. 

All that we shall say to that is, that it is the best illustration that we have ever seen of the following rule, by “Rev. Levi Philetus Dobbs, D.D.,”—Dr. Wayland, editor of the National Baptist—for proving something when there is nothing with which to prove it. In fact we hardly expected ever to find in “real life” an illustration of the rule; but Mr. Elliott’s five-hundred-dollar-prize logic has furnished a perfect illustration of it. The rule is:— 

“Prove the premise by the conclusion, and then prove the conclusion by the premise; proving A by B and then proving B by A. And if the people believe the conclusion already (or think they do, which amounts to the same thing), and if you bring in now and then the favorite words and phrases that the people all want to hear, and that they have associated with orthodoxy, ‘tis wonderful what a reputation you will get as a logician.” 

If “Dr. Dobbs” had offered a five-hundred-dollar prize for the best real example that should be worked out under that rule, we should give a unanimous, rising, rousing vote in favor of Rev. George Elliott and his “Abiding Sabbath” as the most deserving of the prize. 

Yet with all this he finds “complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the [Sunday] Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned.” What! A New Testament institution, and yet in the New Testament there is neither command nor rules for its observance!! Then how can it be possible that there can ever rest upon anybody any obligation whatever to observe it? How would it be possible anyhow to observe it without any rules for its observance? We shall now notice how he accounts for such an anomaly. 

(End Excerpt)

Don't Be Afraid... For Long.

 

Traditions or Commandments.

 Truth.

We accept traditions as truth and refuse to listen to sound reason, logical reason. We refuse facts all in order to support our cherished traditions. Why? Because of that word- cherished. When we cherish something that means we hold it dear to us. We favor that something, we esteem it and hold it in great worth to us- even if in actual monetary value it is worth nothing. How often do you do this, hold something dear, that means nothing to others? All the time? From a childhood toy, to an item passed down from family member to member, to a little trinket a loved one gifted you with, from a child's kindergarten painting, to a great grandparent's old teacup. The cherished things are mostly irreplaceable. You hold something dear and you do not want to give it up easily. It's the same with traditions we hold. I could tell you right now there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for us celebrating Christ's birth every December 25th, and even if you agree that doesn't mean you'll suddenly stop celebrating Christmas. It's a tradition. It's a cherished tradition. 

At what price do we hold fast to traditions though? Do we keep traditions and not commandments? 

If you find out that one of your cherish traditions goes against one of God's commandments would you be willing to give it up, or would you begin to defend your tradition, even going so far as to make up outright lies (which you're prefer to call white lies- stating they hurt no one)? People turn a blind eye to many truths in order to keep their traditions intact. 

Many people are going to tell Jesus Himself that they did all kinds of good things in His name. 

Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 

Did you read that… MANY will say they prophesized in HIS name. they cast out devils in HIS name, they did MANY WONDERFUL works in HIS name. 

People are believing they are living their lives in Jesus' name. The truth however is the opposite. They are doing it all in their own name, they are doing it all under the guidance of Satan without even knowing it. They have refused truth in favor of traditions, traditions that are cherished in the name of the Lord, but the Lord will not recognize these traditions, only His truth. 

Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 

Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 

FEW will hold to the truth. FEW will keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, FEW as opposed to the many. 

Please, Lord, let us be among the FEW! Let us keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus! Please. Help us to recognize and to give up any cherished traditions that go against your commandments and your faith. 

Excerpt -

(Continued from yesterday) 

'But our author continues:—

“After the several appearances of the Saviour on the day of his resurrection, there is no recorded appearance until a week later, when the first day is again honored by the Master. John 20:26. The exact mention of the time, which is not usual even with John’s exactness, very evidently implies that there was already attached a special significance to the ‘first day of the week’ at the time when this gospel was written.”—P. 190. 3

From Mr. Elliott’s assertion of “the exact mention of the time, which is not usual even with John’s exactness,” it would naturally be supposed that John 20:26 makes exact mention of the first day of the week; we might expect to open the book and read there some such word as, “the next first day of the week,” etc. Now let us read the passage referred to, and see how much exactness of expression there is about the first day of the week. The record says: “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.” John 20:26. 

There is the “exact mention” which attaches significance to the first day of the week! That is, an expression in which the first day of the week is not mentioned; an expression, indeed, in which there is no exactness at all, but which is wholly indefinite. “After eight days” is exactly the phrase which John wrote. Will Mr. Elliott tell us exactly how long after? Granting that it was the very next day after eight days, then we would ask the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” if the first day of the week comes every ninth day? If this is to be considered an exact mention of time, unusual even with John’s exactness, then we should like to see a form of words which Mr. Elliott would consider inexact. 

Perhaps some one may ask what day we think it was. We make no pretensions to wisdom above that which is written. And as the word of God says it was “after eight days,” without telling us anything about how long after, we know nothing more definitely about what day it was than what the word tells us, that it was “after eight days.” We know of a similar expression in Matthew 17:1: “And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart;” and we know that Luke’s record of the same scene says: “And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter, and John, and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.” Luke 9:28. Therefore we know that Inspiration shows that “after six days” is “about eight days,” and by the same rule “after eight days” is about ten days. But even then it is as indefinite as it was before, and Inspiration alone knows what day it was. 

But, though we know nothing at all about what day it was, we do know what day it was not. We know that the meeting previous to the one under consideration was on the first day of the week, John 20:19. We know that the next first day of the week would come exactly a week from that time. We know that a week consists of exactly seven days. And as the word of God says plainly that this meeting was “after eight days,” we therefore know by the word of God that this meeting was not on the next first day of the week. 

What saith the Scripture about the first day of the week? And what was the purpose of the Saviour’s repeated appearances on the day of his resurrection? Let us see. 

1. “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.” Matthew 28:1. Here all that is said is, that two women went to the sepulcher on the first day of the week. Well, what reason for keeping the first day of the week lies in that fact? None whatever. 

2. “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.” Mark 16:1, 2. Can anybody tell what there is about this text that shows that the first day of the week is the Sabbath? How can the first day of the week be the Sabbath, and yet the Sabbath be past before the first day of the week begins? 

3. “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they [the women who came from Galilee] came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.” Luke 24:1 

4. “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.” John 20:1. 

Notice that these four statements—one by each of the Gospel writers—are not four records of four distinct things, but four distinct records of the same thing, and the same time, even the same hour. Each one tells what occurred in the morning of a certain first day of the week, and the only fact stated in all four of the records, about the first day of the week, is that certain women came to the sepulcher very early in the morning. Then what is there in all this upon which to base any reason for keeping the first day of the week? Nothing. 

In the Gospels there is mention made of the first day of the week only twice more. These are in Mark and John. And the record in John and the close of the record in Mark speak of the same time precisely, only it is in the evening, whereas, the other was in the morning of that same first day of the week. 

5. Here is Mark’s record: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them [Luke 24:13-48], as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.” Mark 16:9-14. 

6. Of this same time John says: “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.” John 20:19, 20. 

Here, then, are all the instances in which the term “first day of the week” is used in the Gospels, and the manifest story is simply this: When the Sabbath was past, the women came to the sepulcher very early in the morning on the first day of the week, and found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher, and Jesus risen. Then Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, and she went and told the disciples that Jesus was risen and they “believed not.” Then Jesus appeared to two of the disciples themselves as they went into the country, and they went and told it to the others, who yet believed not. Then Jesus appeared to all the company together and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed them which had seen him after he was risen, then showed them his hands, and his feet, and his side, and said: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see.... Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” Luke 24:39-43. 

Now take this whole narrative from beginning to end and where is there a word in it that conveys any idea that anybody ever kept the first day of the week, or that it ever should be kept as the Sabbath or for any other sacred or religious purpose whatever? Just nowhere at all. The Scriptures throughout show that the purpose of the repeated appearances of Jesus was not to institute a new Sabbath, for there is not one word said about it, but to convince his disciples that he really was risen, and was alive again, that they might be witnesses to the fact. The words above quoted show this, but Thomas was not there with the others, and he still did not believe, and so at another time, “after eight days,” Thomas was with them, and Jesus came again for the express purpose of convincing him, for he simply said to the company, “Peace be unto you,” and then spoke directly to Thomas, saying: “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.” John 20:24-27. ASLD 63.2

This is made positive by the words of Peter: “Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.” Acts 10:40, 41. “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.” Acts 2:32. And that evening of the day of his resurrection, when he said to the eleven to handle him and see that it was he, and when he ate the piece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb, he said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; ...and ye are witnesses of these things.” Luke 24:46-48. 

Once more, Peter said, Ye “killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” Acts 3:15.

They were witnesses that Christ was risen from the dead because a living Saviour, and faith in a living Saviour, alone could be preached. How did they become such witnesses? Christ showed himself to them, and “did eat and drink with them after he rose from the dead.” Then what was the purpose of his appearances on this first day of the week mentioned in the four Gospels, and his appearance to Thomas afterward? To give them “infallible proofs” that he was “alive after his passion.” Acts 1:3. Then where does the first-day-of-the-week Sabbath come in? Nowhere. In these texts, in the four Gospels, which speak of the first day of the week, where is there conveyed any idea that that day shall be kept as the Sabbath? Nowhere. 

Then says Mr. Elliott:— 

“These repeated appearances of Jesus upon the first day doubtless furnished the first suggestion of the practice which very quickly sprang up in the church of employing that day for religious assembly and worship.... This impression must have been strongly intensified by the miraculous occurrences of Pentecost, if that festival fell, as we think probable, on the first day of the week—a view maintained by the early tradition of the church and by many eminent scholars.”—Pp. 190, 191. 

Yes, “doubtless” it “must have been,” “if” it was as he thinks “probable.” But against the “early tradition of the church,” and the “many eminent scholars,” we will place just as many and as eminent scholars, and the word of God. It is true that the day of the week on which that Pentecost came is not of the least importance in itself either for or against any sacredness that was put upon it by that occurrence. It is “the day of Pentecost” that is named by the word of God. It was the feast of Pentecost with its types, that was to meet the grand object—the reality—to which its services had ever pointed. And everybody knows that the Pentecost came on each day of the week in succession as the years passed by; the same as does Christmas, or the Fourth of July, or any other yearly celebration. Therefore whatever were its occurrences, they could have no purpose in giving to the day of the week on which it fell any particular significance. 

Yet though this be true, there is so much made of it by those who will have the first day of the week to be the Sabbath, by claiming always that Pentecost was on the first day of the week, that we feel disposed to refer to the Scriptures, which show that this claim is not founded on fact. 

The word Pentecost signifies “the fiftieth day,” and was always counted, beginning with the sixteenth day of the first month. It is also called “the feast of weeks,” because it was seven complete weeks from the day of the offering of the first-fruits, which was the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, the sixteenth day of the first month. On the fourteenth day of the first month, all leaven was to be put away from all the houses. 

They were to kill the passover lamb in the evening of the fourteenth, and with it, at the beginning of the fifteenth day of the month, they were to begin to eat the unleavened bread, and the feast of unleavened bread was to continue until the twenty-second day of the month. The first day of the feast, that is, the fifteenth of the month, was to be a sabbath, no servile work was to be done in that day. Exodus 12:6-8, 15-19: Leviticus 23:5-7. Because of the putting away of the leaven on the fourteenth day, and the beginning to eat the unleavened bread on the evening of that day, it is sometimes referred to as the first day of unleavened bread; but the fifteenth day was really the first, and was the one on which no servile work was to be done. 

On “the morrow” after this fifteenth day of the month—this sabbath—the wave-sheaf of the first-fruits was to be offered before the Lord, and with that day—the sixteenth day of the month—they were to begin to count fifty days, and when they reached the fiftieth day that was Pentecost. Leviticus 23:10, 11, 15, 16; Deuteronomy 16:8, 9. Now if we can learn on what day of the week the passover fell at the time of the crucifixion, we can tell on what day of the week the Pentecost came that year. We know that the Saviour was crucified “the day before the Sabbath.” Mark 15:42. We know that the Sabbath was “the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:54-56), and that was the seventh day—Saturday—and therefore “the day before,” was the sixth day—Friday. It is plain, then, that Jesus was crucified on  Friday; this in itself, requires no proof, but it is important to distinctly mention it here, because the day before he was crucified, “the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.” Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-15. And that was the evening of Thursday, the fourteenth day of the month; because “the fourteenth day of the month at even is the Lord’s passover.” Leviticus 23:5; Exodus 12:6. 

From the passover supper Jesus went direct to Gethsemane, whence he was taken by the mob which Judas had brought, and after his shameful treatment by the priests and Pharisees and soldiers, was crucified in the afternoon of the same day. That was the fifteenth day of the month, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread; and the morrow after that day was the first of the fifty days which reached to Pentecost. Therefore, as the day of the crucifixion was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, and was Friday, the fifteenth day of the month; and as the next day, the sixteenth of the month, was the Sabbath according to the commandment, and was the first of the fifty days; anyone who will count the fifty days will find for himself that “the fiftieth day,” Pentecost, fell that year on “the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” and that is the seventh day. 

So then the day which the advocates of Sunday sacredness claim has received such sacred sanctions by the occurrences of the day of Pentecost, was not the first day of the week at all; but it was the seventh day, the very day which they so unsparingly condemn. (See Geikie’s “Life of Christ,” Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” and the opinions of such men as Neander, Olshausen, Dean Alford, Lightfoot, Jennings, Professor Hackett, Albert Barnes, etc.) Let us say again that we make no use of this fact in the way of claiming any sacredness for the seventh day because of it; that day, in the beginning, was given “the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity,” and nothing was ever needed afterward to add to its sacredness. We simply state it as the truth according to the Scriptures; and being, as it is, the truth, it shows that the claims for Sunday sacredness based upon the occurrences of Pentecost are entirely unfounded.

(End Excerpt)

The Days of the Week.

 Jesus, our Lord and Savior, was crucified on the sixth day of the week. Our Savior gave His life for all of mankind, and we know what day of the week it was. Why is this significant in any way? Why did our God include this information in His holy word? And how do we know it was the sixth day of the week? Because it was the day of the week known as the preparation day. 

Joh 19:31  The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 

Mar 15:42  And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 

Mar 15:43  Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. 

The preparation day was the day before the Sabbath day. A day to prepare for the Sabbath day. The preparation included arranging things in your daily life so that you would keep the commandment of God that tells us to do no work on that day. Joseph of Arimathaea, a Jewish man, asked Pilate for Jesus' body wanting to get the Lord's body into a tomb before the Sabbath. They didn't have time to properly prepare Jesus' body for its burial, and they made plans to return after the Sabbath to do so.  They all kept the Sabbath commandment as Jesus' body lay in the tomb, Jesus slept in death's rest the entire Sabbath day- from evening to evening. Then at some point after the Sabbath, Jesus woke from death's sleep, returning to life.  When the women who had prepared the spices and such to prepare Jesus' body properly for his permanent sleep, came to the tomb Jesus had already rose- and they came early in the morning. 

The preparation day, the sixth day- the Sabbath day, the seventh day- and then the week begins all over again, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh days.  Always the Sabbath day is on the seventh day, always. That day was made holy being sanctified and blessed by God. 

God has gone to such great lengths to make sure we have these days straight, that we know beyond a doubt when His Sabbath commandment was to be kept, as all His royal laws are to be kept.  

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER VI. “ORIGIN OF THE LORD’S DAY”

After leading us through one hundred and eighty-six pages of fact and fiction, of truth and error, of contradiction and re-contradiction of Scripture, reason, and himself, the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” has arrived at the all-important conclusion that “it is in the highest degree probable that the Lord’s day [Sunday] was instituted by the immediate authority of the apostles;” and that “by the most natural revulsion of feeling all that was lost from the seventh day was transferred to the first day of the week.” And so after all this he comes to the discussion of the “origin of the Lord’s day.” Speaking of the resurrection of Christ, thus he proceeds:— 

“The idea of completion, symbolized by the number seven and embodied in the Sabbath as the memorial of a finished creation, is transferred [by a “natural revulsion of feeling,” we suppose, of course] to the Lord’s day, the monument of a finished redemption.”—P. 189. 

If redemption had been finished when the Saviour arose from the dead, or were it even yet finished, we should question the right of Mr. Elliott, or any other man, to erect in memory of it a monument whose only foundation is a high degree of probability, and whose only rites of dedication are performed by a “natural revulsion of feeling.” How much more may we question this right, when redemption, so far from being finished at the resurrection of Christ, will not be finished till the end of the world. The disciples asked the Saviour what should be the sign of his coming and of the end of the world, and he answered, “There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth; for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” Luke 21:25-28. These things did not “begin to come to pass,” till 1780 A.D.; for then it was that the sun was turned to darkness and the moon also. Therefore it is plain from these words of Christ, that instead of redemption being completed at the resurrection of Christ, it was not even “nigh” for 1749 years after that event. 

This is confirmed by Paul. He says: “Ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Romans 8:23. Our bodies will be redeemed at the resurrection of the dead: “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death” (Hosea 13:14); and the resurrection of the dead is accomplished at the second coming of the Lord. “For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17. Therefore Paul, in telling of our redemption, places its accomplishment exactly where Christ places it, that is, at the second coming of the Lord, and not at his resurrection. 

Again Paul writes: “In whom [in Christ] ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.” Ephesians 1:13, 14. “That Holy Spirit of promise” was not given until the day of Pentecost, forty-nine days after the resurrection of Christ; and this, says Paul, is the earnest of our inheritance until (not because of) the redemption of the purchased possession. By this Holy Spirit, says Paul, “ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Ephesians 4:30. Now as the Holy Spirit was given to be with those who trust in Christ “until the redemption,” and as that Spirit was not so given till forty-nine days after the resurrection of Christ, this is proof most positive that the day of the resurrection of Christ could not possibly be made “the monument of a finished redemption.” And when Mr. Elliott, or anybody else, whether individually or by “a general consensus of the Christian church,” sets up the first day of the week as a monument of a finished redemption, it simply perverts the Scripture doctrine of redemption, and puts darkness for light, and error for truth. 

Again he says of the first day of the week:— 

“It is the abiding Sabbath. It was on the first day of the week that the Saviour rose. It is remarkable that this phrase, ‘first day of the week,’ marks the only case in which any day of the week is distinguished from the rest in Scripture by its number, excepting the seventh day, or Jewish Sabbath. Eight times the term is used in the New Testament, five of the instances occurring in connection with the account of the Lord’s resurrection. Other days have no distinctive title, save only the sixth day, which is the ‘Sabbath eve,’ or ‘day of preparation.’ The first day is therefore placed in such significant relation with the seventh day as to impress upon it a meaning which cannot be disregarded.”—Pp. 189, 190. 

If the mention of the first day of the week eight times in the New Testament marks it so distinctively and impresses upon it so strong a meaning as Mr. Elliott imagines, how is it that the mention of the Sabbath fifty-nine times in the New Testament (with sole reference to the seventh day) can impress upon it no meaning whatever? It would seem that if the mention of a day would give any distinction at all to it, the day that is mentioned most would properly be entitled to the most distinction. But behold, here it is just the reverse; the day that is mentioned eight times is entitled to the distinction, while a day that is mentioned more than seven times as often is entitled to no distinction whatever! 

He remarks the “significant relations” in which the first day of the week is placed with the seventh, but in not one instance does he notice these relations. We shall do it for him; for there is a relation there which is very “significant” indeed, in view of his theory that the first day of the week is “the abiding Sabbath.” 

The first mention of the first day of the week in the New Testament is in Matthew 28:1: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.” There is a “significant” relation between the Sabbath—the seventh day—and the first day of the week; and that which is signified by it is that the Sabbath is ended before the first day of the week begins. 

The next mention is in Mark 16:1, 2: “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.” Here also is a very significant relation between the Sabbath and the first day of the week; and the significance of it is that the Sabbath is past before the first day of the week comes. Notice, too, that these women came to the sepulcher very early in the morning the first day of the week; yet as early as it was, “the Sabbath was past.” And the significance of that is, that Mr. Elliott, or anyone else, may arise very early in the morning the first day of the week, just as early as he pleases in fact, but he will be too late for the Sabbath—he will find that the Sabbath is past; it will not “abide” on the first day of the week. 

The third mention is Luke 23:54-56; 24:1: “And that day [the day of crucifixion] was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.” In this passage, the “relations” between the Sabbath and the first day of the week are doubly significant. For here it is not only shown that the Sabbath is past before the first day of the week comes; it is not only shown that although people may arise very early in the morning the first day of the week, they will be too late for the Sabbath; but it is stated explicitly that the Sabbath that was past was “the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” Therefore it is by these texts proved as absolutely as the word of God can prove anything, that Sunday, the first day of the week, the so-called Lord’s day, is not the Sabbath according to the commandment of God; and that when people rest on Sunday, the first day of the week, they do not rest “according to the commandment.” It is likewise proved that the Sabbath according to the commandment is—not a seventh part of time, nor simply one day in seven, but—the definite seventh day of the week, the day before the one on which Christ rose from the dead. 

We repeat: the relations in which are placed the seventh day and the first, in the Scripture, are indeed most “significant,”—so significant that it is utterly impossible to honestly or truthfully pass off the first day of the week as the Sabbath; and that it proves positively that the day before that upon which Christ arose from the dead, the day before the first day of the week, is the Sabbath according to the commandment of God; and that therefore the seventh day, and not the first, is “the abiding Sabbath.” 

(End Excerpt) 

To be continued… 

Lord of the Sabbath.

 Lord of the Sabbath.

(Excerpt) 

CHAPTER V. “APOSTOLIC TESTIMONY.”

In following the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” through the different principal headings under which his argument is framed, and his logic displayed, next after the “Testimony of Christ” we come to his so-called “Apostolic Testimony.” Before we record his first definite proposition under this head, we wish to repeat one sentence from his exposition of the “Testimony of Christ:"

“As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside—a power which certainly he has nowhere exercised, either by himself or through his apostles.”—P. 168. 

Here is the definite, positive statement that Christ has certainly nowhere, exercised the power to set the Sabbath aside, either by himself or through his apostles. Now please read the following:— 

“The Jewish Sabbath is definitely abolished by apostolic authority.”—P. 175. 

True, in this latter statement, he prefixes to the Sabbath the epithet “Jewish;” but on page 190 he defines the “Jewish” Sabbath to be the “seventh day.” And as the Lord from Heaven said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” as that is the day upon which the Lord rested, which he blessed and which he sanctified; as from the creation of the world that was the only day that had ever been known as the Sabbath; and as that day is the only day that was ever recognized as the Sabbath, by either Christ or his apostles, his insertion of the epithet “Jewish” does not in the least relieve his latter statement from being a direct contradiction of the former. Therefore, as Christ nowhere set the Sabbath aside, “either by himself or through his apostles,” and as the only weekly Sabbath of which either himself or his apostles knew anything “was definitely abolished by apostolic authority,” it follows inevitably, by his own words, that if the apostles did abolish it, it was without the authority of Christ. But no, no; he will not allow that for an instant. Well, how does he avoid the conclusion? Oh, that is easy enough; he simply contradicts again both himself and the conclusion, thus:— 

“It is demonstrated that the Sabbath of the law was abolished by apostolic authority, in accordance with the developed teachings of Jesus Christ.”—P.186. 

We beg our readers not to think that we draw out these sentences for the purpose of making contradictions, nor to think we are trying to make the matter worse than it really is. The contradictions are all there; we simply take them as we find them. And really we should not know how to go about it to make the thing worse than it is, nor as bad even as it is. We could wish indeed, that it were not so: but in such a cause it cannot be otherwise; and we want the people to see exactly how the Sunday institution is made to stand by an argument that ought to be the most conclusive, seeing it was considered worthy of a five-hundred-dollar prize. 

We proceed. In proof of his word that the “Jewish” Sabbath is definitely abolished by apostolic authority, he says:— 

“No wonder that the apostles could so little tolerate the proposed continuance of the bondage from which Christ had set them free. Galatians 5:1. Had he not taken away ‘the handwriting of ordinances’ against them, and ‘nailed it to his cross?’”—P. 176. 

But of all things the Sabbath is one that can by no possibility be classed with the ordinances that were against us. Christ said, “The Sabbath was made for man.” The proof is absolute therefore that the Sabbath was no part of those ordinances which Paul says were “taken away;” for those that were taken away were such as were against us (Colossians 2:14); unless, indeed, by Mr. Elliott’s costly reasoning it could be made to appear that the same thing can be for us and against us at the same time. But, allowing all the wondrous efficacy of this high-priced logic, we doubt its power to the performance of this feat. Yet on the strength of the above statement he makes the following assertion:—

“With the ceremonial system vanished the Jewish Sabbath.”—P. 177. 

It would be an easy task indeed to disprove this, on our own part; but he does it himself so effectually that we need merely to copy his words. Of the law given at Sinai, he says:— 

“Of the law thus impressively given, the fourth commandment forms a part. Amid the same cloud of glory, the same thunders and lightnings, uttered by the same dread voice of the Infinite One, and graven by his finger, came forth these words as well: ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ It is impossible, in view of these facts, to class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. By the sacred seal of the divine lip and finger, it has been raised far above those perishing rites.”—P. 118. 

That is a fact. It is impossible, even by prefixing to it the epithet “Jewish,” to class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. For amid the same cloud of glory, the same thunderings and lightnings, the same dread voice of the Infinite One, who said, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” said also, “The seventh day is the Sabbath”—not of the Jews, but—“of the Lord thy God.” It is indeed raised far above the perishing rites and ordinances that were against us. Therefore, although the ceremonial system vanished, the Sabbath remains; for it is no part of the ceremonial, but is an essential part of the moral system. 

But Mr. Elliott is not done yet. He continues:— 

“Such is the relation of apostolic teaching to the Jewish Sabbath. The yoke of the fathers with its crushing weight of sacerdotal requirements, was cast off. The galling fetters of tradition were broken, and forever was the infant church delivered from ‘statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.’ Ezekiel 20:25.”—P. 180. 

Over against that please read this concerning the Sabbath of the fourth commandment:— 

“It belongs to that moral law which Paul calls ‘holy, and just, and good’ (Romans 7:12), and not that ritual law of which Peter declares, ‘neither our fathers nor we were able to bear’ it. Acts 15:10.”—Pp. 118, 119. 

So, then, the “yoke” which was “cast off” had nothing to do with the Sabbath; and the “statutes that were not good,” etc., from which the infant church was delivered, were not at all those of which the Sabbath is a part, for they are “holy, and just, and good.” And more, we should like to know upon what principle it is that the author of “The Abiding Sabbath” applies the phrase, “the galling fetters of tradition,” to an institution given by the direct word of God, with a voice that shook the earth, and whose obligation was graven upon the tables of stone by the divine finger? For by the term “Jewish” Sabbath he invariably means the seventh day, and that is the very day named by the voice of God. But lo, this is to be pushed aside as “the galling fetters of tradition;” and in its place is to be put a day—Sunday—to which in all the word of God there is no shadow of sacredness attached; a day which rests for its authority solely upon, “we have the right to assume,” “the right to infer,” “doubtless,” “probably,” “in all likelihood,” and “a religious consensus of the Christian church” (p. 203); and in all this we are to suppose there is nothing traditional! 

Again we read:— 

“It has already been shown that the Sabbath is a part of the moral law; it has the mark of universality as co-existent with man; it embodies a spiritual significance; it has a reasonable basis in the physical mental and moral needs of man; it was incorporated in the decalogue, the outline of moral law given to Israel; it was enforced by such threatened penalties for violation and promised blessings for observance as could not have been attached to a merely ceremonial ordinance; and Jesus confirmed these historical and rational proofs by his own example and teachings.”—P. 183. 

That is the truth, and it is well stated. But now see what an extraordinary conclusion he draws from it:— 

“Being, therefore, a part of the moral law, it is established as an apostolic institution by every word and phrase in which the apostles assert that law to be still binding on men.”—P. 184. 

“Being, therefore, a part of the moral law, it is established as an apostolic institution”!! Is, then, the moral law an apostolic institution? Does the moral law find its origin in the apostles? Do the precepts of the moral law find their spring in the will, and derive their authority from the actions, of the apostles? We confess it impossible for us to find language that would fittingly characterize such a preposterous proposition. It is astonishing how any man who is capable of forming the least conception of moral law, could set it forth as sober argument. Nor are we allowed to entertain the charitable view that perhaps it was done ignorantly; for Mr. Elliott himself has given us a perfect exposition of the ground of existence of moral law, not only of moral law in the abstract, but also of the Sabbath as being itself a moral institution. He says:— 

“Suppose the question to be asked, How can we know that any precept is moral in its meaning and authority, and not simply a positive and arbitrary command? What better answer could be given to this inquiry than to say that a moral precept must have the ground of its existence in the nature of God? Our highest conception of the moral law is to regard it as the transcript of his nature.... All must agree that no more perfect vindication of the moral character of a law can be given than to show that it is a rule of the divine conduct; that it has been imposed upon his own activity by that infinite Will which is the supreme authority both in the physical and moral government of the universe. That law to which the Creator submits his own being must be of absolute binding force upon every creature made in his image. Such is the law of the Sabbath. ‘God rested the seventh day,’ and by so doing has given to the law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity.”—Pp. 23, 24. 

Such, in truth, is the origin and ground of authority of all moral obligation; such is the origin and ground of authority of the moral obligation of the seventh day. The seventh day is the only day that has, or ever has had, any such sanctions; therefore the seventh day is the only day that has, or that can have under the existing order of things, any claim whatever to the moral consideration of mankind. And the above statement of the ground of moral obligation effectually shows the utter absurdity of the idea that the Sabbath, “being a part of the moral law, is established as an apostolic institution.” How could he possibly think himself called upon to make such a statement anyhow? Why, just thus: He has set out to have the first day of the week the Sabbath; he knows that it cannot be made to appear with any shadow of authority before the days of the apostles; he knows that even though it be made to originate with them, it can have no authority outside of the church unless it be moral; therefore, in contradiction of his own proofs, and in defiance of every principle of the basis of moral obligation, he is compelled to make the apostles the source of moral obligation. But he might better have spared himself the pains; for the idea is repugnant to the very consciousness of every man who will pause to think at all upon the subject. The apostles were the subjects, not the authors, of moral obligation. 

Notice again that the statement which we are here discussing is the conclusion which he has drawn from a series of things which he says had “already been shown;” and we must give him the credit, which is very seldom his due, that from his main premises his conclusion is logical. The proposition under which he draws his conclusion is that, “The apostles, by confirming the moral law, have enforced the obligation of the Sabbath.” Under this, his principal term is:— 

“The apostles of Jesus Christ, as he had done in the sermon on the mount, re-enacted for the church the whole decalogue in its universal meanings.”—Pp. 181, 182. 

To enact, is “to decree; to establish by legal and authoritative acts; to make into a law.”—Webster. 

To re-enact, therefore, is to re-decree, to re-establish by legal and authoritative acts, to make again into a law. Now, if after the enactment by God and the re-enactment by Christ, the decalogue still needed to be confirmed by the apostles, and still needed legislative acts of the apostles to establish it legally and authoritatively as a moral standard, then we submit that Mr. Elliott’s conclusion that the Sabbath, “being a part of the moral law, is established as an apostolic institution,” is strictly logical. But we sincerely question the wisdom as well as the justice of paying five-hundred-dollar prizes for a style of reasoning which can be logical only in the reversal of every principle of the philosophy of moral obligation. 

It most excellently serves his purpose though. His grand argument from “apostolic testimony” he closes thus:— 

“As certainly as historical proof can be adduced for any fact, so certainly is it demonstrated that the Sabbath of the law was abolished by apostolic authority, in accordance with the developed teachings of Jesus Christ. But although the Sabbath of the law ceased, the law of the Sabbath is abiding.”—Pp. 185, 86.

If, then, the Sabbath of the law be abolished while the law of the Sabbath remains, it must follow that the law of the Sabbath remains with no Sabbath. Oh, no, not at all. This is the emergency which he has all the while been laboring to create, and of course he meets it promptly. He continues thus:— 

“And it is in the highest degree probable that the Lord’s day which embodied its spirit was instituted by the immediate authority of the apostles, and therefore by the supreme authority of their Master, Jesus Christ.”—P. 186. 

And so the grand feat of getting Sunday into the fourth commandment is accomplished at last; and “it is in the highest degree probable” that the reader sees just how it is done. But there is yet one more thing to be done that the work may be complete in every part; that is, to transfer to the first day the Sabbath associations with which God has surrounded the seventh day. And we beg that Mr. Elliott be allowed to tell how that is done, because it rounds out his work in such symmetrical proportions. He says:—

“It is easy to comprehend how the Jewish Sabbath must almost at once have lost its hold on the affections of the disciples.... In the most powerful manner possible, those feelings of festal gladness and holy joy inseparable from the true idea of the Sabbath, were forever disconnected from the seventh day.... And by the most natural revulsion of feeling, all that was lost from the seventh day was transferred to the first day of the week.”—P. 188. 

There, the work is done; the climax is reached; the “Hill Difficulty” is passed; and the first day of the week has become the “abiding Sabbath.” It rests for its authority upon an, “it is in the highest degree probable;” and for its sacredness, upon “the most natural revulsion of feeling.” But against all his probabilities of however high degree, and against all his revulsions of feeling however natural, we set the plain word of God “which liveth and abideth forever:” “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.”  (End Excerpt)

Lessons to Learn.

 Come with me, we're going on a little journey. This journey will take you through the wilderness and it's going to be a spiritual journey- the physical hardship of it all will only serve to hone the spiritual. You will suffer various deprivations, but there are a few things you will not suffer.  The clothing you are wearing will never become threadbare, but will serve to last for as long as the journey last. You will never die of starvation or thirst- even if you do feel hunger and thirst- they will not kill you. You will be given special instructions for your future, you will be given opportunities, you will have to make choices- and your choices will have consequences.  

This journey I'm asking you to take will have you leave a life of extreme hardship and enter a life of hardship- only the new life of hardship will come with promises for your eternal future that your old life could never give you.

There are rules, and one of those rules…

The food that will be provided to you will be given to you each day in the morning. You must go out and collect this food for your daily needs, just enough each day for what you'll consume that day- no leftovers. Don't worry, you'll have all you need, each day. You will NOT ever have to worry about there not being food to sustain you. However, because you need to learn spiritual truths, this food distribution will teach you about one of the very important spiritual institutions whose origins stem from the very beginning of creation. In the beginning, mankind chose to disobey their Creator, now you will be given a chance to choose to obey. 

On the sixth day of the weekly seven day cycle, you will be given twice the amount of food because there will not be any food on the seventh day. Only on the seventh day will extra food that you gather on the sixth not spoil. If you try to gather any extra on other days it will rot and stink so that you cannot eat any of it.  You are to learn that the seventh day of the weekly cycle is special, holy, sanctified, blessed and you are not to work on that day but spend the day in commemoration of your creation and therefore your Creator.

The short journey, will become long because of the hardness of your hearts. You refuse to learn, but not for lack of being taught. For forty years you will eat the food of angels, for forty years you will celebrate the weekly seventh day Sabbath. Lessons to be learned…. Will you learn?  

Food from God.

Rest from God.

Yet so many will despise these gifts because they do not allow for perverted self-serving in any way, not even the smallest way.

Once the food from God is gone, and you are able to grow food because you are no longer journeying, you will forever have the seventh day Sabbath, this will never disappear, never change, and forever be. You must never forget your Creator, never. You will have the seventh day Sabbath eternally. 

May we learn to be servants and not self-serving. May we learn to obey.

All through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior! Now and forever! Amen!

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER IV. “THE SABBATH OF REDEMPTION.”

“The Sabbath of Redemption” composes Part III of “The Abiding Sabbath,” and in it throughout the author still diligently pursues his course of systematic self-contradiction. The first division of this part is “The Testimony of Jesus Christ” upon the subject of the Sabbath, a few sentences of which we quote. He says--

“As already shown, the Sabbath contained moral elements; it belonged not solely to Israel, but was sanctioned by the primitive revelation to the race, being the first article in the law of the beginning; it was a part of that sublime code which by the mouth of the Eternal himself was spoken to his chosen people from the mountain of God; its violation had been surrounded, in the Mosaic legislation and in the prophetic instructions, with penalties, and its observance with blessings, such as could hardly be attached to a simple institution of ritual. The abiding Sabbath, belonging to the moral law is therefore not repealed or canceled by Jesus, but rather confirmed with new uses, loftier meanings, and holier objects.”—P. 159. 

Then in speaking of the “false strictness” with which the Jews has surrounded and obscured the real intent of the Sabbath, and how Jesus swept this all away, he says:— 

“There is not in all this any hint of the abolition of the Sabbath, or release from its obligations. The words of Jesus become meaningless when they are applied to anything but the abuses and perversions of its purposes by the Rabbinical schools. Had he desired to abolish it altogether, nothing would have been easier than to do so in terms. His words are everywhere framed with the utmost care, and strictly guarded against any construction which would involve a denial of the real sacredness of the day blessed by the Creator and sanctioned by the moral law.”—P. 163. 

Now the day blessed by the Creator is the seventh day; for “God bless the seventh day” is the word of God, and “The seventh day is the Sabbath” is the declaration of God in the moral law. Therefore we submit that as Christ’s words are “strictly guarded against any construction which would involve a denial of the real sacredness of the day blessed by the Creator and sanctioned by the moral law,” then the word of Christ binds every man to the observance of the seventh day, and forever debars any application of his teaching to any other than the seventh day; for God never blessed any but the seventh day, and none other than the seventh day is sanctified, as the Sabbath, by the moral law. 

Again he says:— 

“Jesus confirms the Sabbath on its spiritual basis. ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ ...Thus he at once rid it of all the false restrictions of Judaism, and, establishing it upon its primitive foundations, he brought forth its higher reason in the assertion of its relation to the well-being of man. ‘The Sabbath was made for man;’ not for the Jew only, but for the whole race of mankind; not for one age alone, but for man universally, under every circumstance of time and place.”—P. 165. 

Then in another place Mr. Elliott says further:— 

“The declaration in Genesis furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus: ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’”—P. 17. 

The “declaration in Genesis” is: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” We agree perfectly with Mr. Elliott that that “furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus,” in Mark 2:27. It is the Lord’s own commentary on his own word; it is his own explanation of his own statement. Therefore when, by any statement in any way, Mr. Elliott or any one else attempts to bring the first day of the week into place as the Sabbath, it is simply doing violence to the word of God, and is in direct contradiction to the divine commentary. 

Now in accordance with his scheme throughout, after having, by every principle of logic, established the obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath, he proceeds at once to contradict it all. He says:— 

“‘The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ This is an assertion by our Lord of his right to make such modifications in the law of the Sabbath, and give it such new adjustments as should to him seem best for the religious culture of the race. As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside,—a power which certainly he has nowhere exercised, either by himself or through his apostles. He had the right to change its day and alter or add to its meanings,—a right which he has exercised in giving us the Lord’s day, the Christian Sabbath, and in making it a monument of redemption as well as of creation and providence. Because he is ‘Lord of the Sabbath,’ we can rightly call the Sabbath the Lord’s day, and the Lord’s day our Sabbath. That which he has asserted that he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he has done, and we have, moreover, the right to infer that the change which came over the Sabbatic institutions in the early Christian centuries was not without his will, but by his authority and in fulfillment of his purpose.”—Pp. 168, 169. 

Again:— 

“More subtly than Moses, yet as really as the lawgiver in the wilderness, he was instituting a new Sabbath.”—P. 172. 

Here are several points, upon each of which we wish to dwell for a moment. We take the last one first: “More subtly than Moses, yet as really .. he was instituting a new Sabbath.” How subtly did Moses institute a new Sabbath? Why not at all, subtly or otherwise. Moses instituted no weekly Sabbath, either new or old. God spoke the word from Heaven: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work;” as Mr. Elliott himself says, “Not by the mouth of angel or prophet came this sublimest code of morals: but the words were formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself” (p. 117). But go back even beyond Sinai, to the Wilderness of Sin, at the falling of the manna, nor yet there was it left to Moses to mark the day that was the Sabbath, much less was it given to him to institute the Sabbath. Here, again, Mr. Elliott states the case precisely: “God himself provided the feast in the wilderness which marked for them the weekly recurrence of the holy day.... The connection of the miraculous supply of food with the seventh day was certainly calculated to strongly impress the Sabbath upon the thoughts and imaginations of the people, and thus was laid the sure foundation for the Sinaitic legislation” (p.110). 

That seventh day which was singled out for Israel by the miracle of the manna in the Wilderness of Sin, and which was so kept before them for forty years, that was the identical seventh day which the word “formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself” declared to be the Sabbath of the Lord. And that was the very seventh day which that same word declared was the one on which God rested from creation, the day which he, at creation, blessed and sanctified. That was the only weekly Sabbath that was ever known to Moses or to Israel; and with its institution Moses had nothing whatever to do, either subtly or otherwise. And when Mr. Elliott brings in Christ as, “more subtly than Moses, yet as really ...instituting a new Sabbath,” it is simply saying, as a matter of fact, that Christ really instituted no new Sabbath at all. And that is the truth. 

“That which he has asserted he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he has done,” says Mr. Elliott. Is, then, the authority of the “Christian Sabbath” to rest upon assumption? Is the first day of the week to be brought in by an inference? The day that has received “the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity;” the day which has been specified in the word “formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself;” the day that was pointed out by weekly miracles for forty continuous years,—that is to be supplanted by one that is brought in merely upon the assumption that what the Lord has asserted that he had the power to do, he has done! But any such assumption is wholly illegitimate. And we shall prove by Mr. Elliott’s own words that this, his assumption, is simply willful. 

Christ said, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Now in that declaration there is just as much of an assertion of his power to entirely set aside the Sabbath, as there is of his power to change it. Therefore, upon Mr. Elliott’s proposition, there is just as much “right to assume” that Christ abolished the Sabbath, as there is to assume that he changed it. Mr. Elliott says: “As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside.” Therefore, if his assertion of his power to do a thing gives right to the assumption that he has done it, why is it not right to assume that he has set it entirely aside? But no; Mr. Elliott will not at all allow that. But in the very next sentence he says: “He had the right to change its day,” and, “That which he has asserted he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he has done,” therefore the inference is that whatever change has come over it, was “by his authority and in fulfillment of his purpose.” 

We repeat, and this Mr. Elliott’s argument allows, that in Christ’s quoted words there is just as much assertion of the power to set the Sabbath “entirely aside,” or do with it any imaginable thing, as there is to “change its day;” and Mr. Elliott’s argument is just as sound a basis for the assumption that the Sabbath has been abolished, or that any other wild scheme has been accomplished with it, as it is for his assumption that it has been changed. And when Mr. Elliott lays down this proposition, which equally allows any assumption that the imagination might frame, it depends simply upon the wishes of the individual as to what shall be assumed, and therefore the assumption is wholly willful. Christ has asserted his power to call from their graves, all the dead; by Mr. Elliott’s proposition we have the right to assume that he has done it. Christ has asserted his power to destroy death; under this novel proposition we have the right to assume that he has done it. Everybody knows, however, that such assumptions would be absolutely false; but they would be no more so than is Mr. Elliott’s assumption that Christ changed the Sabbath. Mr. Elliott’s proposition is simply absurd. The fact is that we have no right to assume anything in the premises. 

Christ said: “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke 17:10. No man can do more than his duty. But when we have done all that is commanded, we have but done our duty. Therefore nothing can be duty that is not commanded. No man ever yet cited a commandment of God for keeping the first day of the week; there is no such commandment. Therefore until a commandment of God can be produced which enjoins the observance of the first day of the week, there can be no duty in that direction, Mr. Elliott’s five-hundred-dollar-prize assumptions to the contrary, notwithstanding. (End Excerpt)

God Needs No Rest.

 God Rested. 

God Needs No Rest.

Isa 40:28  Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. 

Previously in this current study - mention was made of God's resting being a sign of God completing something, not of His needing time off from a hard job.

How often have you started a project that took a long time to finish and when you finally finish the project, even if you're not physically tired, you have a sense of satisfaction, fulfillment, a sigh of relief (even if you were thrilled and happy doing the entire project)? There comes that special feeling you truly only get when you've finished a project. Of course, comparing any of our projects with God's work of creation is unfathomable, but we get a small glimpse into something that enables us to have a tiny bit of comprehension, yes? 

God completed the work of Creation. The finishing touch, the capstone on creation was a day of recognition of that completed work through a recognized day of no work.   We understand the term holiday don't we? In the sense that if I say this or that day is a holiday it makes it a special day. On that special day we like to have it "off" if we are working, or we like to get paid double if we "have" to work on that special day. A holiday is only a holiday because we a people have made it such. There are plenty of holidays that have only come into being over time- not throughout all time. 

From the internet I get this bit of information-

The first four congressionally designated federal holidays were created in 1870, when Congress granted paid time off to federal workers in the District of Columbia for New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

From <https://www.google.com/search?q=when+did+the+first+holiday+begin&rlz=1C1AVFC_enUS845US845&oq=when+did+the+first+holiday+begin&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30i395j0i390i395.18894j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8> 

Another tidbit of information-

This time of year "Happy Holidays" is common greeting in United States. But, where and when did the word come from. The word holiday came from an Old English word that was first recorded in 950 AD, as hāligdæg (hālig for "holy" and dæg for "day"). The first recorded spelling as holiday was in 1460 AD. Around the Middle English period, it took on a new meaning as "a day when commoners were exempt from labor". In celebration, people often feasted on a flatfish called butte. Today's halibut got its name from hali or holy and butte or flatfish.

From <https://prolingo.com/blog/where-do-our-holiday-words-come-from/> 

Commoners exempt from labor… granted paid time off to federal workers…  

We all are familiar with this concept and have been for a very long time.

God has made the seventh day of the week His weekly Holy Day and He made it FOR US.   

God memorialized Creation week and never wanted us to forget that we are CREATED beings living in a CREATED world.  

On the various holidays we celebrate, we know the name of the holiday and what it represents, why we are celebrating that holiday.  It's NO different for celebrating the weekly holiday we've been given by our Creator. NO MAN created this holiday, God created it, for US.  

How glorious it is to recognize our God, our Creator! How wondrous it is to take the seventh day Sabbath created for us, and celebrate the glory of God! This is such a special commandment, one of the royal ten laws, a commandment embracing a precept from our very creation, our very beginning as human beings. The importance of this day is right in our face in the very fact it is WEEKLY!  We take holidays that are once a year and make a big huge deal over them. We think about them off and on, but until they are usually close to be celebrated we don't think about them overly much. Yes, you might go out and buy a Christmas present the day after Christmas for the following year, but most people do not do that every day throughout the year or even every week.  We do place importance upon these days- for the most part, not everyone does. Every human being however should comprehend the importance of their existence and God wants us to comprehend HIS glory and our forever need to be thankful for our very lives. 

We are BLESSED to have this HOLY day, and we are BLESSED to be commanded to recognize this HOLY day every Sabbath. 

God insured that we would KNOW beyond a doubt which day of the weekly seven was His Holy day….  God's chosen people of Israel were given the command to recognize the day and they've kept that day since. Jesus kept that day. The Apostles kept that day. We know what day it is without any disputing.  Some like to imagine God changed the day, but He never, ever did. Man dared to, but not God. Why God would ever take His designated day of rest memorializing Creation for all time, and change it is incomprehensible. He could not say- God rested the first day from all He'd created and made… it would be a lie and God does not lie! 

We have this special connection to our very creation, and so many turn their noses up to it in so many ways.  

May God bless us with spiritual comprehension of His TRUTH in all things!

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER III. SOME FIVE-HUNDRED-DOLLAR LOGIC

It must be borne in mind that the book entitled “The Abiding Sabbath” was written to prove “the perpetual obligation of the Lord’s day;” and that by the term “Lord’s day,” the author of the book means, in every instance, the first day of the week. Therefore, “being interpreted,” the book, “The Abiding Sabbath,” is an argument to prove the perpetual obligation of the first day of the week. It is likewise to be remembered that the trustees of Dartmouth College paid the Fletcher prize of five hundred dollars for the essay which composes the book “The Abiding Sabbath.” This certainly is tangible proof that those trustees, and the Committee of Award appointed by them, considered that the object of the essay had been accomplished, and that thereby the perpetual obligation of the first day of the week had been proved. But we are certain that any one who has read the two preceding chapters on this subject, will wonder how, in view of the arguments there used, the author can make it appear that the first day of the week is “the abiding Sabbath.” Well, to tell in a few words what we shall abundantly demonstrate, he does it by directly contradicting every sound argument that he has made, and every principle that he has established. 

In the first chapter of the book, from the scripture “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:3), he proves the institution of the Sabbath at creation, and says: “Whatever institutions were given to man then, were given for all time.” 

And again: “‘God rested the seventh day,’ and by so doing has given to the law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanction possible, even to Deity.... It is therefore-bounded by no limits of time, place, or circumstance, but is of universal and perpetual authority.”

It was the seventh day upon which God rested from the work of creation; it was the seventh day which he then blessed; it was the seventh day which he then sanctified; and he says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Now if, as Mr. Elliott says, this institution was given to man “for all time,” and that, too, “with the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity;” and if it is bounded “by no limits of time, place, or circumstance,” how can it be possible that the first day of the week is the abiding Sabbath? It is clearly and absolutely impossible. The two things cannot stand together. God did not rest the first day of the week. He did not bless, nor did he sanctify, the first day of the week. He has never called the first day of the week the Sabbath; nor as such an institution has he ever given it any sanction of Deity, much less has he ever given it the “highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity.” Then upon no principle of truth can it ever be made to appear that the first day of the week is the abiding Sabbath. 

Then in Part II, on the fourth commandment,—the “Sabbath of the Law,”—he says of the Sabbath therein given to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt: “The first institution of religion given to the emancipated nation was the very same with the first given to man” (p.110). He says that it has “a meaning not for the Hebrews alone, but for the whole race of mankind;” that “the reason of the commandment recalls the ordinance of creation;” that “the ideas connected with the Sabbath in the fourth commandment are thus of the most permanent and universal meaning;” and that “the institution, in the light of the reasons assigned, is as wide as creation and as eternal as the Creator” (pp. 114, 126). 

And yet into this commandment, which says as plainly as language can speak, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” Mr. Elliott proposes to read the first day as “the abiding Sabbath.” 

Before noticing his reasons for such a step, we would repeat one of his own paragraphs:— 

“Long should pause the erring hand of man before it dares to chip away with the chisel of human reasonings one single word graven on the enduring tables by the hand of the infinite God. What is proposed?

To make an erasure in a Heaven-born code; to expunge one article from the recorded will of the Eternal! Is the eternal tablet of his law to be defaced by a creature’s hand? He who proposes such an act should fortify himself by reasons as holy as God and as mighty as his power. None but consecrated hands could touched the ark of God; thrice holy should be the hands which would dare to alter the testimony which lay within the ark.”— 128, 129. 

And so say we. 

After proving that the ten commandments are of universal and perpetual obligation, he discovers that the decalogue “contains transient elements.” He says:— 

“It may be freely admitted that the decalogue in the form in which it is stated, contains transient elements. These, however, are easily separable. For example, the promise attached to the requirement of filial reverence, ‘that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee,’ has a very evident reference to Israel alone, and is a promise of national perpetuity in possession of the promised land.” 

But lo, just here he discovers that this is not a “transient element,” and that it has not “reference to Israel alone;” for he continues in the very same paragraph:— 

“Even this element is not entirely of limited application, however, for Paul quotes the commandment in his letter to the Christians of Ephesus (Ephesians 6:2), as ‘the first ...with promise,’ evidently understanding the covenant of long life to have a wider scope than simply the Hebrew nationality. 

And it is clear that nothing can be imagined which could give more enduring stability to civil institutions than that law-abiding character which is based on respect for superiors and obedience to their commands.”—Pp. 120, 121. 

His proposition is that “the decalogue contains transient elements.” And to demonstrate his proposition, he produces as an “example,” a “transient element” which he immediately proves is not a transient element at all. Then what becomes of his proposition? Well, by every principle of common logic, it is a miserable failure. But by this new, high-priced kind, this five-hundred-dollar-prize logic, it is a brilliant success; for by it he accomplishes all that he intended when he started out; that is, that by it he might put aside as a “transient element” the seventh day, and swing into its place the seventh part of time. For after proving that his example of a transient element is not a transient element at all, he continues:— 

“This serves to illustrate how we may regard the temporal element in the law of the Sabbath. It does not bind us to the precise day, but to the seventh of our time.” 

To the trustees of Dartmouth College, and to the Committee of Award which they appointed, and to the American Tract Society, it may serve to illustrate such a thing; but to anybody who loves truth, sound reasoning, and fair dealing, it only serves to illustrate the deplorable weakness of the cause in behalf of which resort has to be made to such subterfuges. 

Besides this, his admission that the decalogue contains transient elements is directly contrary to the argument that he has already made on this very subject. On page 116, he had already written of the ten commandments:—

“These statutes are therefore not simply commands or precepts of God; for God may give commandments which have only a transient and local effect; they are in a distinctive sense the word of God, an essential part of that word which ‘abideth’.... By the phrase ‘the ten words,’ as well as in the general scope of Hebrew legislation, the moral law is fully distinguished from the civil and ceremonial law. The first is an abiding statement of the divine will; the last consists of transient ordinances having but a temporary and local meaning.” 

Yet directly in the face of this, he will have it freely admitted that the decalogue “contains transient elements.” Are there transient elements in the divine will? Can that which abideth be transient? And if the decalogue contains transient elements, then wherein is it “fully distinguished” from the “civil and ceremonial law,” which “consists of transient ordinances”? The genuine logic of his position is (1) the ceremonial law consists of transient ordinances; (2) the decalogue is fully distinguished from the ceremonial law; (3) therefore the decalogue consists of nothing transient. But with the aid of this five-hundred-dollar-prize logic it is thus: The ceremonial law consists of transient ordinances. The decalogue is fully distinguished from the ceremonial law. Therefore it may be freely admitted that the decalogue contains transient elements!! And so “with the ceremonial system vanished the Jewish Sabbath,” which he defines to be the seventh day (pp. 177, 190). By one argument on these transient elements, he manages to put away the precise seventh day, and to put in its place “the seventh of our time;” by another he is enabled to abolish the seventh of our time, as well as the precise seventh day, by which he opens the way to insert in the commandment the precise first day as the “abiding Sabbath” and of “perpetual obligation.”

Again we read:—  

“While the Sabbath of Israel had features which enforce and illustrate the abiding Sabbath, it must not be forgotten that it had a wholly distinct existence of its own...Moses really instituted something new, something different from the old patriarchal seventh day.”—P. 134. 

With this read the following:— 

“The first institution of religion given to the emancipated nation was the very same with the first given to man.”—P. 110. 

How the Sabbath of Israel could be the very same with the first given to man, and yet have a wholly distinct existence of its own; how it could be the “very same” with the first given to man, and yet be “something new” 2500 years afterward; how it could be something different from the old patriarchal seventh day, and yet in it there be “still embodied the true Sabbath,” we cannot possibly conceive; but perhaps the genius that can discern in the decalogue transient elements which it proves are not transient at all, could also tell how all these things can be. 

Just one more illustration of the wonderful feats that can be performed by a prize essay. On page 135 he says:— 

“In the Mosaic Sabbath, for the time of its endurance and no longer, was embodied, for a particular people and no others, this permanent institution which was ordained at creation, and which lives now with more excellent glory in the Lord’s day.” 

That is to say: (1) In the Mosaic institution, “for the time of its endurance [1522 years] and no longer,” was embodied an institution which is “rooted in the eternal world” (p. 28), and which is as eternal as the Creator (p. 126); (2) in the Mosaic institution, which was “for a particular people and no others,” was embodied an institution whose “unrelaxed obligation” extends to “every creature,” “to all races of earth and all ages of the world’s history” (pp. 122, 124). 

In other words, in an institution that was for a particular people and no others, for 1522 years and no longer, was embodied an institution that is eternal, and for all races in all ages of the world’s history. 

Now we wish that Mr. Elliott, or some of those who were concerned in paying the five-hundred-dollar prize for this essay, would tell us how it were possible that an institution that is as eternal as the Creator could be embodied in one that was to endure for 1522 years and no longer; and how an institution that is of relaxed obligation upon all races in all ages, could be embodied in one that was for a particular people and no others. And when he has told us that, then we wish he would condescend to inform us how in the Mosaic Sabbath there could be embodied three such diverse elements as (1) the “permanent institution which was ordained at creation,” which was the seventh day; (2) “something new,” which he says was “not improbably a different day;” and (3) “the institution which lives now with more excellent glory in the Lord’s day,” which he says is the first day of the week. 

We have not the most distant idea, however, that Mr. Elliott, or any one else, will ever explain any of these things. They cannot be explained. They are absolute contradictions throughout. But by them he has paved the way by which he intends to bring in the first day of the week as the abiding Sabbath, and they are a masterly illustration of the methods by which that institution is made to stand. (End excerpt)